Leave a comment

Comments 21

kitanabychoice August 1 2012, 20:55:54 UTC
What a mess this is. I just can't get over people wanting everything to be privatized and a 'competitive' industry. Some things just need to work for everybody, period.

Reply

carmy_w August 1 2012, 21:01:31 UTC
This is a case where the legislature deliberately passed a law that they knew the PO couldn't follow without bankrupting itself.

I wonder who's got a private delivery system waiting in the wings to take it over?

Reply

kitanabychoice August 1 2012, 21:10:26 UTC
Yeah, I know, I remember when that law passed and everyone was facepalming at how obvious a ploy it was to get USPS off the table. /smh

Reply

mirhanda August 2 2012, 17:13:50 UTC
Exactly this.

Reply


rex_dart August 1 2012, 21:45:58 UTC
Fuck this. My company - a small business - runs off of USPS. I don't know where we'd turn if we didn't have them, because private couriers don't deliver free shipping supplies to our door or swing by every single weekday to pick up dozens of orders. The USPS is a huge part of the reason our company is able to provide good jobs for a group of twenty-somethings that would probably otherwise be unemployed or making little better than minimum wage. They're also part of the reason our young customer demographic is able to afford ordering from us. They're an absolutely vital service and I am sick and fucking tired of right-wingers talking about this privatization bullshit and trying to fuck the USPS over. It's just another way they talk about ~rebuilding the economy~ and meanwhile try their damnedest to fuck over the people who are actually out here busting our asses to create jobs.

Reply


layweed August 1 2012, 21:57:20 UTC
They acted pretty darned quick to avoid another government shutdown, if the post on the previous couple of pages is to be believed. Maybe the worry that this will negatively impact election chances will cause them to put the pedal to the metal on this one too?

Reply

fenris_lorsrai August 2 2012, 01:19:09 UTC
as soon as they figure out they can't mail out a fuckton of campaign literature by UPS or FedEx for pennies, they'll decide to save the postal service.

Reply

serendipity_15 August 2 2012, 02:58:37 UTC
That is a very good point, once they figure out that no, UPS and Fedex will NOT stop at EVERYONE's mailbox every damn day to stuff it full of campaign literature they'll change their tune.

Reply

fenris_lorsrai August 2 2012, 03:58:02 UTC
I swear we could have wallpapered a room in McMahon literature last time. GOOD GOD. I hope she loses the primary just so we aren't blanketted in the stuff again.

Reply


moonbladem August 1 2012, 22:27:10 UTC
To be honest, and I'm sure not everyone will agree with me on this, I wouldn't mind, say, a 20 cent hike on postal rates. Factoring gas prices, the fact that your postage includes the cost of return postage, operating costs, staff salary, mail vehicle maintenance etc, it's still cheaper than sending mail via commercial mail carriers.

The Postal Service is still a vital service. People and businesses still depend on it daily to send stuff cheaply, efficiently and reliably. All this privatization nonsense will result in one thing: increased prices. That should never be allowed to happen.

Reply

romp August 2 2012, 05:16:38 UTC
I agree re privatization. This seems to match the pattern of starving a public service so that it *has* to be saved with privatization. >:/

Wasn't there talk of the USPS dropping Saturday delivery? Canada doesn't have it and I don't miss it.

Reply

bellonia August 2 2012, 12:52:20 UTC
USPS does not deliver on Sundays, so.

Reply

romp August 2 2012, 18:12:11 UTC
I know the USPS doesn't deliver on Sundays. Canada Post doesn't deliver on Saturdays or Sundays and I believe I saw a proposal for the USPS to cut Saturdays to save money.

Reply


saint_monkey August 2 2012, 16:44:52 UTC
The "default" mentioned is a part of the "Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act" of 2006, which requires the Postal Service to pre-pay health benefits for the next 75 years over 10-years. (Until 2016.) The pre-payment makes up most of the Postal Service's budget gap. If they didn't need to pay it, they'd be in the black. The article makes it sound like these are current obligations that the USPS would be defaulting on, but in actuality, they are paying for future benefits because of complicated accounting tricks designed to reduce the appearance of the deficit.

Reply

akuma_river August 3 2012, 19:35:27 UTC
Romeny and his Bain Capital bullshit was behind that.

I can't find the exact article at the moment but I heard it was part of his investments and I remember posting about it too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Regulatory_Commission#Changes_under_the_.7C_Postal_Accountability_and_Enhancement_Act_of_2006_-_H.R._6407

The PAEA stipulates that the USPS is to take any surplus at the end of a fiscal year, and put that amount into the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund to prepay for employees retirement costing the USPS a total of 500 billion dollars between 2007 and 2015. This requirement also explicitly stated the USPS it stop using its savings to reduce postal debt, which was stipulated in Postal Civil Service Retirement System Funding Reform Act of 2003[4]. This is in addition to deductions from pay for federal contribution to social services[5] . This ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up